How genuine is "starvation mode"?

Options
13»

Replies

  • Iwishyouwell
    Iwishyouwell Posts: 1,888 Member
    Options


    And just how often do you have to do those "deep cuts"? :huh:

    If you are cycling through "deep cuts" and then "normal" eating, you are not developing a healthy relationship with food. Success is losing the weight and keeping it off. If you haven't been able to do that, your "deep cut" followed by "normal" eating isn't really normal eating, it's going back to over eating.

    HA!

    Sorry, barking up the wrong tree. This grown man doesn't do internet eating disorder diagnosis from the peanut gallery.

    I lost weight and maintained it for years. I have a great relationship with food now, even better than then. During this particular weight loss cycle I cut 45 lbs, maintained for a year and a half, before launching back into more active weight loss.

    Thanks for your concern, but I'm doing very well.

    P.S. I said "normal" eating. I rarely consume over 2,500 calories a day. I can count on two hands how many days I've truly "overeaten" in the last 3 years.
  • CallMeCupcakeDammit
    CallMeCupcakeDammit Posts: 9,375 Member
    Options
    Try these links for some actual Science...

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1077746-starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss

    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html

    I'm going to add another. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/475726-very-low-calorie-diets-and-metabolic-damage
  • AliceDark
    AliceDark Posts: 3,886 Member
    Options
    I personally hate the term "starvation mode" because of how misunderstood the concept is. To quote one of the best movies ever..."You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

    "Chronic undereating" or "sustained malnutrition" would both be more useful and accurate. It's eating an insufficient number of calories over a long period of time, which is distinctly different from anorexia nervosa. (Anorexia nervosa, clinically speaking, has some very specific diagnostic criteria. Plenty of people can have an unhealthy relationship with food and be underfed without actually being anorexic).

    Eating under 1200 calories isn't the same thing, unless you sustain that for a long period of time. It's still not a good idea, but we should be able to articulate the difference between having short periods of eating too little vs. being chronically underfed.
  • ashbridgewater
    ashbridgewater Posts: 1
    Options
    I recently was reading about macros and in order to determine the amount of calories you should never cut lower than, you must consider your lean body mass, not your overall mass. For example, someone at 20% body fat will need less calories than someone only at 10% body fat. Muscle burns nutrients and calories. So the 1200 calorie assumption is way too general for everyone to go by.
  • katesnewbody
    katesnewbody Posts: 62 Member
    Options
    thank you SO much! what you are saying makes total sense! AT LAST someone who is making sense, and isn't trying to scare me away from undereating. (which, by the way, is essentially what dieting IS.)


    and as for overweight people who claim they "barely" eat, I agree 100%. You CANNOT maintain a body mass that high without eating the calories to sustain it. If you could, people wouldn't starve to death in third world countries; they'd simply be obese, without eating much. so I call BS on the poster who claimed they ate barely anything while they were overweight/obese.
  • katesnewbody
    katesnewbody Posts: 62 Member
    Options
    thank you SO much! what you are saying makes total sense! AT LAST someone who is making sense, and isn't trying to scare me away from undereating. (which, by the way, is essentially what dieting IS.)


    and as for overweight people who claim they "barely" eat, I agree 100%. You CANNOT maintain a body mass that high without eating the calories to sustain it. If you could, people wouldn't starve to death in third world countries; they'd simply be obese, without eating much. so I call BS on the poster who claimed they ate barely anything while they were overweight/obese.

    AH that was meant to be a reply to "Iwishyouwell".
  • charleenboyle
    charleenboyle Posts: 1
    Options
    I know for a fact that "starvation mode" exists. It isn't called STARVATION MODE it is called DIET INDUCED HYPOTHRYOIDISM or LOW T3 SYNDROME just in case you'd like to look those things up.

    It shows as low T3 in a Free T3 thyroid test. Basically since you aren't eating enough your body slows down everything so that it can continue to function.

    Your heart rate will be in the 50's, you won't lose weight no matter what you do, you'll be extremely tired, you might have shortness of breath, and be really cold all the time. Among other things...

    Granted you'd have to be eating under 1200 calories for over a month and up to 6 months in order for this to happen and most people have no idea it is happening. They stop losing weight, get discouraged, stop their diet...then pack on the pounds.

    You can literally mess up your metabolism forever. And let me tell you something...it isn't fun. I know what I'm talking about. It happened to me (is happening) and now if I stray from my current eating habits I'll gain weight - and I have to take T3 supplements. I'm still very very tired...all the time.

Categories